Industry pressure overrides scientific independence
Danish society faces a troubling erosion of research integrity as chemical industry lobbyists directly edited academic safety standards before publication. A DR investigation revealed that researchers at the National Research Centre for Work Environment (NFA) received over 70 comments from chemical companies on formaldehyde safety limits, with industry representatives ultimately rewriting key sections of the final paper. Source: Danish National Research Foundation - Research Integrity.
The correspondence, obtained through freedom of information requests, shows researcher Peder Wolkoff describing the process as "a form of compromise" while simultaneously writing to his German colleague: "I believe we should stand firm here without further pressure from industry." The contradiction exposes how Denmark's research institutions struggle to maintain independence when industry funding creates conflicts of interest.
Formaldehyde, a carcinogenic chemical used in everything from clothing to construction materials, was at the center of the dispute. When industry lobbyists successfully changed the recommended safety factor from "2" to "1-2" and added language stating it "can be for some substance between 1 and 2," they effectively weakened protective standards for Danish workers and consumers.
Arm's length principle collapses
The case violates Denmark's research integrity guidelines, which require an "arm's length principle" between funders and researchers. According to Danish research integrity standards, this principle should ensure "that researchers can make independent decisions and deliver impartial research and advice without interference from or consideration of partners' economic or political interests."
Lobbyism researcher Wiebke Marie Junk from Copenhagen University called the correspondence "shocking reading" with "so many red flags." The emails show Edgar Leibold from chemical giant BASF and Manfred Dunky from the European Panel Federation not just commenting on drafts, but directly editing text using track changes in Microsoft Word. After a video conference between researchers and industry representatives, Leibold sent the final version with his edits, instructing the German researcher to "finalize the report (accepting the changes included) and send the report together with your invoice."
NFA director Steffen Bohni defended the collaboration, arguing that as a sector research institution, NFA must engage with stakeholders. But this misses the point. The problem is not consultation, it is capitulation. When industry representatives write the conclusions of safety research they funded, the arm's length principle becomes a handshake agreement.
Research credibility at stake
Research integrity expert Heine Andersen from Copenhagen University warned that such industry interference represents "the victory of the money regime over scientific quality." When safety standards become negotiable between researchers and the industries they regulate, public trust in Danish scientific institutions erodes. Citizens cannot distinguish between independent research and industry-sponsored advocacy if the boundaries blur.
The formaldehyde case also highlights regulatory capture risks. Chemical companies understand that academic publications influence EU safety regulations. By shaping research conclusions, they indirectly influence policy without transparent lobbying disclosure. Danish policymakers may unknowingly base decisions on industry-edited science.
The DR investigation has prompted questions in Folketinget about research funding oversight. The case demonstrates how industry partnerships can compromise scientific independence when proper safeguards are absent.
Read more: Danish Energy Boss Pays Angry Customers via Facebook Group.
Read more: Danish Concussion Care Gaps Leave Children Without Treatment.